S/PV.5904
5904th meeting
Wednesday, 4 June 2008, 10 a.m.
New York
International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991
International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January and 31 December 1994
Mr. Gouider (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (spoke in Arabic): At the outset, I should like to welcome and thank the Presidents of the two Tribunals, Judges Pocar and Byron, and the Prosecutors, Mr. Brammertz and Mr. Jallow, not only for their comprehensive briefings to us but also for the outstanding work they and their staff have carried out.
We know very well that, in 2003 and 2004, the Security Council determined the time frame for the completion strategy for the two Tribunals. It called for a commitment to this framework, urged States to cooperate with the two International Tribunals and underscored the development of the judicial capacities of the national jurisdictions concerned.
The assessments before us, and particularly the valuable briefings that we have heard today, testify to the evident progress made in implementing what has been decided, particularly the accomplishments of the Tribunals in the many tasks involved in the implementation of their completion strategies. There have been numerous acquittals, convictions and appeals, and there are many ongoing trials in which judgement has yet to be delivered.
Despite this progress, the inability to arrest some of the fugitive indictees and the resulting impunity are a source of concern and preoccupation to us. Yet this unfortunate reality, for which we see no end, cannot be a reason for not implementing the completion strategies as expeditiously as possible, within the prescribed time frames. Such implementation requires, in addition to the efforts of the two Tribunals and their staff, the continued provision of any financial and human resources support that the two Tribunals require to complete their work.
In our opinion, this implementation would be facilitated if as many possible pending cases as possible are referred to courts of national jurisdiction, once those courts’ commitment to the principles and procedures of fair trials has been verified. Such an approach would definitely reduce the volume of work of the two Tribunals. But every effort must be made to observe the principle of equality, uphold the rule of law in the concerned States and ensure the protection of archives whose importance in the history of these States and their ongoing reconciliation processes is even greater than that of the archives of ordinary judicial proceedings.
Circumstances have changed since the establishment of the two Tribunals as non-permanent jurisdictions at the end of the last century. Judicial institutions and legislation have been developed in States where war crimes have been committed, and where the evidence and witnesses are available, which would allow these States to deal with pending cases with the assistance of the two Tribunals within the framework of their completion strategies and with the support of the international community.
Our keen interest in the expeditious implementation of the completion strategies stems from our desire to decide at an early date on the legacies of the two Tribunals and the residual mechanisms, once the completion strategies are over. Ambassador Verbeke’s statement during Council consultations last month dealt with the various aspects of this issue. We have nothing to add to it today, except to voice our appreciation for the impressive work accomplished by the two Tribunals, their respective Presidents and the Working Group of the Security Council.
